I don't know about "multiple users" but I would think supporting a package and how it interfaces with puppy version 2.x or 3.x would be, for the most part, less of a job than supporting a whole fork of puppy--which ultimately sounds like it would end up as "pupuntu" by reviewing the reasoning behind the above and other discussions. I just want to slip on some protection without rebooting or "no save" or whatever--particularly if its only going to be for a quick 20 minute session before I get back to critical research.

For example, I can start a vmware instance from an image in my workstation and wreak some ugly damage to the image by typing goggle.com or otherwise and its all contained quite nicely--bad active x scripts seem to be contained as well. But starting an operating system within an operating system just to "safely" leave the box--so to speak--seems like overkill. The effect is achievable with xen (even more so with virtual-enabled CPUs) with less resource consumption, but still overkill.

Barry seems driven to decrease Puppy's complexity with each evolution which is almost unheard of in "progressive development". Most of you cats are buying into this and getting real creative with simplicity and that rocks. I think, as you point out often enough, that a lot of this creativity is self-expression and we must choose our avenues of expression. Each of the derivatives offers insight into the hearts, minds and passions of their creators/maintainers and it is with great respect and admiration that I look upon graphpup, pizzpup, etc...as well as what Barry (and friends) has achieved.

of the dozen or so distro's/derivatives i've tried since 1999, ubuntu was the first thing i was able to do anything useful with. i still use it to rip ogg files since i don't know how to install the ogg codecs for ripperx in puppy. (puppy can play mpg/mp3/ogg but writes wav or mp3... ripped oggs SOUND Beautiful.)

but i was unable to install anything without a connection to the internet (hold on, what i mean is that i had to have UBUNTU connected to the net, which wasn't possible and still isn't for me) and the package management wouldn't let me uninstall ANYTHING either. i appreciate that app-i-don't-care-about requires app-i-don't-care-about that-i'm-trying-to-uninstall but really, fine if you must bother me with that detail, but LET ME DO IT!

guesttoo's wonderful simple (in all aspects) package system in puppy changed all that.

because of this simplicity, ubuntu was left behind as the first distro that i could use for anything, for puppy: the first distro that i could use for anything that wasn't already a standard feature.

i had been trying to install dosemu (or dosbox when it came out) for 8 years, and thanks to mu, i was able to install dosbox (FINALLY) and run dos apps in linux. i was also able, within 6 months, to install dosemu at long last.

ubuntu i had to reinstall because of the way it forces you to not be root. sudo is a fine OPTION but when mandated IT SUCKS.

all in all, i can't freaking stand ubuntu.

now a word on simplicity

simplicity isn't simple. think of it as compression: yes, compression makes a file smaller but it takes a sophisticated (complex) algorithm to make it compress. the more compression there is, the more complex a process is usually required.

similarly, every time you make something mroe simple, you have to put More Thinking into the process of making it simple for someone else.

so there are at least two levels of simplicity:

internal simplicity: the stuff under the hood that is working invisiably and automagically

external simplicity: the kind you must be referring to an increase of. yes, optional wizards (even by default) are a good thing when you put a lot of thought into their design.

what drives most distros/foss software projects/and eventually, commericial products like windows into extinction are an imbalance of external and internal simplicity.

for example: dotpup was very simple. dotpet is more complex. this can be okay (and it might be)

dotpet seeks to make things externally more simple. this is not a bad thing. but when the internal mechanisms are not designed in a simple way, they become difficult or impossible (or impractical) to maintain and are abandoned for something "better."

note that i mean someday, puppy itself will be replaced with something better because not enough people could keep puppy simple. but if we take care of him, puppy can last as much as a decade or two (as redhat might, or as dos really actually has.)

while it's good to make things externally simple, if the constant effort to make things simple on the outside makes them more and more complex on the inside, eventually the internal complexity will start to show up as far as the user is concerned: it doesn't work, and now you need complex fix-its and sometimes those don't work.

i'm saying something significant here:

1. too strong/careless a drive to make something simple for the user

-> 2. things become too complex internally to maintain

-> 3. things start to become too complex for the user

making it more simple to use makes it more complex to use. that's the paradox, and the thing that the best devs go to great care (and employ great brilliance) to avoid.

with luck, when things get unbalanced, they get rebalanced. when they don't get rebalanced, they simply stop being used._________________sadly, it is not possible to separate politics from free software. free software - politics = unfree software.

You may be thinking like Windows XP. If you logged in as a limited user, you would be limited to any installs(very untrue! viruses can still install). However, to stay in that limited way but if needed to install a program, you can login as an admin.

But still....... how would you bubble EVERY single program????? I'm not disagreeing too much, but LOTS of programs use the NET. Of course, for me, I use Firefox with ad blockers and stuff, but still, you have those popups that fly loose.

I'd stick to the multiuser idea. If you just "bubble/limit" everything, hackers can still find a way OUT of the bubble/limitation, and hack your computer.

As a regular user, you would have destruction of your HOME dir, but never anything else.

I definitely agree with you on one thing-about puppy needing a rebuild.
By statistics, Puppy's 28th on the list.(as said by hit counts on distrowatch.com, scroll down and on the right, you'll see the list. if you wonder why am I wrong, 1 i did a check today, and 2 I did the "last 7 days" option) I was suprised to hear that Puppy had lost 372 visitors(hpd based)!!!

What Puppy need's is a groom, a a vet checkup, and a pamper.
What I really mean is that Puppy need to be rebuilt with multiuser, some secure things, and a redesign of puppy's website-a bit user repelling....

Ubuntu is good, but as I heard, it loves the NET and never wants to part with the NET.....

Puppy solved hat. It doesn't need the NET that much.
Even to uninstall it doesn't need to have the internet......

Anyway, back too the multiuser:

Yes, there ARE bots that love this site, and before long the BOTS will tell the hacker about the site, and before long the hacker will know wht puppy is, and if the hacker wanted the hacker could hack people's computers(trying to find IPs).

Thoughtfully, Puppy is kinda simple. But, Puppy just needs that "oomph" to get popular....
When I first started using Puppy(going to puppyos.org) I almost thought that puppy was a discontinued project, just by the look!But then I discovered that Pupppy was alive, and MUCH better than I thought!!!!!

I am right now attempting a redo of the site.
-----------------------------------------------
Comparison of Puppy and Ubuntu:

Most Linux distro are multi-users, but Puppy appears to be single users system that assumes you run as root. Is there some reason for this? Did Barry ever explain why it was written this way (for simplicity?)

As Nathan mentioned, this thread is not for discussing the merits of multi-user vs. single-user.
Neither is it for philosophizing about whether Puppy should have the option or not.
This is supposed to be a technical discussion about how to do it, be it for implementing into Puppy or so when we're old we can tell our grandchildren that we managed to get Puppy running multiuser.
If anyone wants to talk nonsense, they can go to any of the myriad threads in this forum consisting of that.

Now to busyness: I don't think it should be a problem to modify Puppy to accommodate the multiuser option without affecting the way it currently works.

Puppy can be as it is now, with some upgraded packages (such as mentioned by Nathan) and some slightly modified scripts.
It will run as it does now, but will have a "add user" option and the first time you add a user it will:
- get the root user to select a new password
- create the new user
- change your Puppy "installation" to run in multiuser mode

The last can be done by
1) (clumsy) installing a package
2) (better) modifying various scripts and files (/etc/inittab?) to how we need them in multiuser mode
3) (best) have everything built0in from the start, but just have some flag telling us to run multiuser

I really don't think that, for example, having in rc.local0 something like

Code:

if [ -f /etc/.multiuser ] then
exec /etc/rc.d/rc.multiuser
fi

will affect the "regular" use of Puppy…_________________What's the ugliest part of your body?
Some say your nose
Some say your toes
But I think it's your mind

GuestToo is right on both counts. Setting up a multi-user environment carelessly could very well result in a system that is less secure than what Puppy is by default. That's why it pays to tread carefully. Also, the permissions of /tmp should be as he says.

Dougal brings up a couple good points here too, although I don't think there needs to be an rc.multiuser file. Frankly, most distros can be run just fine as root in which case you will have a very Puppy-like experience. Basically once the environment is set up Puppy can behave normally as people are used to, but by changing the way inittab is set up there are a lot of possible options. Puppy could continue to log root in automatically at boot, or he could present a text mode login prompt, or he could start a login manager. It would not be too hard to create a small wizard which makes the switch easy.

And absolutely, the changes I have been making are unobtrusive to the way users expect Puppy to run.

Folks I'm honestly glad that the thread is attracting attention now, but please read the initial post and try to keep the comments relavent to a technical discussion, rather than a philosofical one.

you could try running qemu (available as .pup) as spot, but it probably makes more sense to run apps like seamonkey and gaim or xchat as spot without emulation.

...ubuntu i had to reinstall because of the way it forces you to not be root. sudo is a fine OPTION

sorry if there wasn't enough technical info for your taste, dougal, next time if you could please make your request to stay on topic a little more arrogant and pompous, and more insulting to half the people on the forum, that would be nice. i'm all in favor of people working on this, if i knew how i'd help. i did know about running as spot, which someone was interested in doing, and helped him with it.

but since obviously i'm in the way here, i'll go sit on my thumb and let you GROWNUPS talk shop. christ.

Hehe, that was just an example to show how little influence having the multiuser option will have on normal users...

My main point was that it should be done in a way changes the way Puppy works only if you've already added users -- so people can go on using Puppy without complaining about "having to log in" or anything._________________What's the ugliest part of your body?
Some say your nose
Some say your toes
But I think it's your mind

Do users have an option of changing the screen resolution only for themselves? I'm curious how it is done elsewhere..._________________What's the ugliest part of your body?
Some say your nose
Some say your toes
But I think it's your mind

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum